Bombay High Court Quashes Seizure and Security Deposit on Imported Food Consignments Cleared by FSSAI

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 02.09.2026

Bombay High Court Quashes Seizure and Security Deposit on Imported Food Consignments Cleared by FSSAI

The Bombay High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Shivshakti Enterprises vs. The Commissioner of Customs & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 6043 of 2026), addressing the legality of a seizure and the imposition of a hefty security deposit on imported food consignments. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the case, the legal arguments, the court’s reasoning, and its broader implications for importers and regulatory authorities.

Background of the Case

Shivshakti Enterprises, a sole proprietorship led by Rohit Kumar Somabhai Patel, imported two consignments of Roasted Arecanuts (Beetle Nuts) in March 2026. The goods were examined by customs, and samples were sent to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) for testing. On April 10, 2026, FSSAI issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC), confirming the goods met the standards under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act).

Despite the NOC, customs authorities did not release the goods. Instead, further testing was conducted by the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL), which found the moisture content to be 6.8% and 6.9%. Subsequently, the goods were seized, and the petitioner was asked to provide a bank guarantee of Rs. 40,00,000 for provisional release. Shivshakti Enterprises challenged both the seizure and the security deposit requirement in the Bombay High Court.

Key Legal Issues

1. Authority of FSSAI vs. Customs: Whether a NOC from FSSAI is conclusive for the release of imported food items, or if customs can impose additional requirements.
2. Requirement of Security Deposit: Whether demanding a bank guarantee for provisional release is justified when FSSAI has already cleared the goods.

Arguments Presented

• Petitioner’s Stand:
  • Once FSSAI issues a NOC, further examination by customs or CRCL is unwarranted.
  • The requirement for a bank guarantee is excessive and not supported by law, especially in light of previous judgments.
  • Cited precedents: NBG International Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and similar cases from Calcutta, Punjab & Haryana, and Madras High Courts, all supporting the primacy of FSSAI’s clearance.
• Respondents’ Stand:
  • Customs retains the right to verify the nature, description, and tariff classification of goods, regardless of FSSAI’s NOC.
  • The NOC pertains only to food safety, not customs classification or duty assessment.
  • The seizure and security deposit were justified due to ongoing disputes about classification and compliance.

Court’s Analysis and Reasoning

The High Court found that the issue was squarely covered by its earlier decision in NBG International Pvt. Ltd. The court emphasized:

• Finality of FSSAI’s NOC: Once FSSAI certifies that goods conform to food safety standards, customs authorities should not withhold release on the same grounds.
• Laboratory Analysis Procedure: The FSSAI’s process for laboratory analysis is robust, transparent, and time-bound, ensuring high standards for food imports.
• No Scope for Reclassification: After FSSAI’s clearance, customs cannot arbitrarily reclassify or detain goods on similar grounds.

The Judgment

The Bombay High Court ordered:

1. Quashing of Seizure and Security Deposit: The seizure memo dated May 19, 2026, and the order requiring a Rs. 40,00,000 bank guarantee were set aside.
2. Immediate Release of Goods: Customs was directed to release the goods without insisting on a bank guarantee.
3. Renewed FSSAI Certification: The petitioner must obtain a fresh Certificate of Fitness from FSSAI before selling the goods, as they had been stored for several months.
4. No Order as to Costs: Each party was to bear its own costs.

Implications of the Judgment

• For Importers: The judgment reinforces the authority of FSSAI in food safety matters and protects importers from arbitrary or duplicative actions by customs.
• For Customs Authorities: Customs must respect FSSAI’s findings and cannot impose additional requirements unless there is a clear legal basis.
• For Regulatory Clarity: The decision harmonizes the roles of different regulatory bodies, reducing delays and uncertainty in the import process.

Conclusion

The Shivshakti Enterprises judgment is a landmark in balancing regulatory oversight with trade facilitation. It underscores the importance of respecting specialized authorities’ findings and provides much-needed clarity for importers navigating India’s complex regulatory landscape.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi